Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fishes

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Fishes and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcut

WT:FISHWT:FISH

Archives

Archive 1 – until July 2007
Archive 2 – until July 2009
Archive 3 – until Oct 2014
Archive 4 – until June 2018
Archive 5

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 90 days are automatically archived by if there are more than 4.

CFD notification

The related Category:Interactions between humans and fish has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page.

Pages for obsolete families

Should we retain pages for obsolete families that were followed by Fishes of the World or earlier authorities? Off the top of my head, I can think of Scorpaeniformes (all members moved into several different suborders within Perciformes), Trachiniformes (paraphyletic across all the Percomorpha), Moroniformes (all members moved into Acanthuriformes), Spariformes (all members moved into Acanthuriformes), Stiassnyiformes (an alternative definition for Ovalentaria). Some should be easily mergeable into their relevant pages, but it may be harder for others like Trachiniformes. Geekgecko (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think they could be accommodated into sections on a superordinate group, but before that we'll have to adequately summarize the volatile taxonomic situation to laymen. Percomorpha/Perciformes/Percoidei gives even me a headache Anthropophoca (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the taxonomic situation has been generally resolved, but I'll have to return to those pages to help summarize the present taxonomic understanding better. Geekgecko (talk) 14:32, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to tag me for summarizing work Anthropophoca (talk) 14:33, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a case for retaining articles on Scorpaeniformes and Trachiniformes, which have some history as part of the rearrangements of the percomorphs, although these articles would need updating to explain thier fate. The smaller orders introduced in the Deepfin studies and now merged into a broader Acanthuriformes can be mentioned in the latter article, although they muight end up as suborders or superfamilies there when a article might be appropriate. It just seems that the taxonomy still needs more work before it is settled. — Jts1882 | talk 12:06, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retaining pages for obsolete taxa can be appropriate. I think it would be appropriate when the taxon has long been recognized (100 years?) and when the members have been moved to multiple taxa. If the taxon was only recognized for a short time (e.g. erected in 2000 phylogenetic study and abandoned in a 2010 study) an article is less worthwhile. If all members have been moved to a single taxon, the obsolete taxon can be redirected as a synonym. Plantdrew (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mirolabrichthys

The article now at Mirolabrichthys was moved from draftspace and left with a broken taxobox. I created taxonomy templates to fix the taxobox for now, but secondary sources don't recognize the genus. Fishes aren't my area, so could someone here please sort this out. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:48, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FishBase and ECoF recognise the genus Mirolabrichthys with the three species and the subfamily has been elevated to family. I've revised the taxobox and text. — Jts1882 | talk 15:41, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jts1882: in which case Pseudanthias evansi should be moved to Mirolabrichthys evansi. (It would be useful if FishBase and/or ECoF were in the taxonbar.) Peter coxhead (talk) 15:53, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FishBase is in the taxonbar for species if there are wikidata items, but not higher ranks. Unfortunately ECoF isn't. I did look at Wikidata and it needs a number of new items to be created and I haven't the time for that at the moment. — Jts1882 | talk 16:24, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudanthias evansi now moved to Mirolabrichthys evansi.

Do the taxonbar links for FishBase work? The ones I've tried go to "https://www.fishbase.ca/summary/#" where # is the number in the taxonbar, but for me never then resolve. The correct URL seems to be "https://www.fishbase.us/summary/SpeciesSummary.php?ID=#", e.g. https://www.fishbase.us/summary/SpeciesSummary.php?ID=7799. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:49, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fishbase has a number of mirror sites and some don't always work. I usually change it to .se. I haven't been able to get .ca links for some time, so I've change the wikidata to prefer the .org link, which I think is the main site. Iirc, if you specify .org, it sometimes redirects to a mirror site. — Jts1882 | talk 12:28, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about Teleostomi in the automated taxonomy system

A discussion has recently popped up about the use of the taxon Teleostomi in the automated taxobox system. It appears this taxon is paraphyletic and belonging to an older hypothesis where acanthodians were more closely related to osteichthyans than to chondrichthyans. Editors are asking to remove this taxon as the parent of Osteichthyes in the taxobox system, in favor of Eugnathostomata instead. We think editors from here should also be aware, as the issue is specific to this project. — Snoteleks (talk) 22:08, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Spotted eagle ray

Spotted eagle ray has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:34, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]